get_acr_decision_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description is too brief. It does not disclose behavior like authentication requirements (apiKey parameter is optional but not explained), rate limits, or return format. With no annotation support, the description fails to inform the agent of behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one phrase) but lacks structure and completeness. It is front-loaded but does not include necessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (retrieve by id) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify language, encoding, or any caveats for the returned text. More context about behavior and usage would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, explaining 'id' as a decision serial number from search results and 'apiKey' as an authentication key. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '[권익위] 국민권익위 결정문 전문' clearly indicates the tool retrieves the full text of ACRC decisions. The name 'get_acr_decision_text' is specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_ftc_decision_text or get_nlrc_decision_text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other decision text retrieval tools or search tools. The description lacks instructions about prerequisites, such as needing to search for decisions first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.